Shockwave wrote:Really? Because both me and Anderson got out of that...
Sparky Prime wrote:where they literally did say that transforming is what they're all about.
This. Where you literally just said this is how you interpreted it.
You might want to re-read that comment because that's not what that says at all. All that part of a sentence says is that *they* literally said transforming is what they're "all about", not how I interpreted it. Would you deny that's not the actual words they wrote?
And andersonh1 only agreed that he didn't mean it to be taken literally. Which as I've said, I already figured as much but that wasn't the point I was making.
That's not what you just said above.
Because I was reinterating what words they'd written, not talking about my own interpretation there.
Between the two contradictory statements above I don't really know what they hell you're arguing. Frankly I'm starting to wonder if you even know.
Well they aren't contradictory statements in the first place as I've pointed out. It's starting to seem to me like you're going out of your way to misread or take things out of context just so you can argue it.
Yeah, you do keep saying that. And again, literally no one here is disagreeing with you. So quit presenting it as some sort of argument when literally no one is arguing against this.
Seems to me you're disagreeing with me on just about everything. And you really need to stop quoting just parts of sentences like it's the whole thought because you keep loosing the context of what it is I'm actually saying. That people enjoy other factors isn't what I'm arguing, it's the reasoning *for* my argument which is the *other half* of that sentence.
This was all you needed to say. Simple and straight to the point. Sometimes less is more.
I have said that. Several times in fact. Yet somehow you kept thinking I was saying they didn't need to transform or confusing the first half of that sentence as the argument itself.